Quote: However, the power of suggestion sometimes works even in the absence of evidence.

Well let me just point out that in my case the people using Instant Female Magic which is a combo of 3 pheromones Androstadienone being the prominent one only knew they were pheromones and did not know what they did or what the names was. When I ask them to test them out I dont tell them the effects before hand and most of them only associate pheromones with sex. 4 out of the 6 reported reduction in PMS symptoms. Less irritability and feelings of unease. No mention of cramping though. So its not the power of suggestion.

They also tested IO which is primarily Alpha Androstenol and Scent of Eros without that result. I know 6 people is not a big group. Perhaps its the combination of Alpha Androstenol and Androstadienone that triggers this effect. I believe Alpha Androstenol is present in Instant Female Magic .

I still tend to go with my own data. While I love the scientific side of things and researching the answers to the why and hows I take the advice of Einstein. "Don't let your education get in the way of learning" I do know that many pheromones signal very differently when they enter the body through the olfactory system then they do when naturally inside the body. When hormones travel inside the body and bind to receptors they have various proteins and enzymes with them. They do signal the cells in the body but I feel pheromones signaling is a entirely different signal. That's just my own theory from using them and testing them for a long time.

I dont let the whys and hows cloud the consistent reactions being seen with any molecule.

Nope I know there is no Androstanone in it. A lot of people do not want to use Androstanone and since I was couching some of them it was something I needed to know and double checked with the Jasmin. This is going back years before they were lacking molecules and things were running smoothly. I dont have the full formulas but I do have quite a bit of info on whats in them and whats not for that reason.

I still have quite a few bottles of it but I never use it because it dosent do much for me.

(11-09-2009 4:57 PM)Tisha Wrote: Nope I know there is no Androstanone in it. A lot of people do not want to use Androstanone and since I was couching some of them it was something I needed to know and double checked with the Jasmin. This is going back years before they were lacking molecules and things were running smoothly. I dont have the full formulas but I do have quite a bit of info on whats in them and whats not for that reason.

I still have quite a few bottles of it but I never use it because it dosent do much for me.

Thanks for asking for back-up. I continue to be surprised by the number of people who simply accept marketing claims, concoct a product and invent their own marketing claims based on what duped consumers have to say about their concoction. There are so few people interested in any scientific approach to this topic, that Ioften think I am wasting my time putting together the facts--as others have repeatedly done. For example see: Wysocki, C. J., & Preti, G. (2009). Human Pheromones: What's Purported, What's Supported. A Sense of Smell InstituteWhite Paper. You can read the entire paper on line, or download the PDF. http://senseofsmell.org/papers/Human_Phe...-15-09.pdf

I share information with these guys during at least one scientific conference every year.

Here are some excerpts from their paper.

"The labeling and use of these compounds [AND and EST] as putative human pheromones are based on the false premise that humans have a functioning VNO (see below)."

"...no data in either peer-reviewed literature or patents issued to EROX (63, 69-73)demonstrate
the isolation of these putative pheromonal compounds from a human source, e.g., axillae or skin,..."

"Savic and colleagues (64, 65) as well as Sobel and co-workers (66), had subjects smell the headspace above up to 200 milligrams of neat, undiluted, crystallineAND while they recorded alleged pheromone-mediated differences in functionalMRI images, mood, and physiological changes. This amount of AND is up to a million times greater than the nanogram amounts found in the human axillae!"

Bottom line. Even those of us who are not well-versed in steroid hormone biochemistry (most of ushere) should at some point begin to wonder about why we use what we use--and what others claim to be pheromone-enhanced products. There's so much market BS that nearly all aspects of scientific scrutiny have been overwhelmed. Who ever indicated that androstanone is a pheromone? Where's the research to back whatever chemical that's supposed to be? Same with beta-androstenone. It seems to me that marketers simply started drawing names from a hat, or worse, just made something up. Di-dehydroepiandrosterone, anyone?

For comparison, a reprint arrived today that appears to link androstenol directly to estrogen receptor and olfactory receptor activation.

JamesV. Kohl
scentoferos.com

(11-08-2009 1:34 AM)Diane999 Wrote: You know I've been looking at Androstadienone, and I can't for the life of me see how it could possibly have the characteristics that are attibuted to it.

I mean, structurally, it is obviously an odoriforous compound. It is a 3-keto, 4,16-dehydro androgen steroid.

But it doesn't have any of the structural characteristics that are common to the obvious pheromones that affect CNS functioning.

It has none of the usual features, like a 3alpha/3beta hydroxy group or a 5alpha/5beta hydroxy group, no methyl groups, no sulphate groups.

It just looks smelly to me.

JV... back me up on this or correct me if I'm going down a wrong path here.

Mother Nature's phenomena seem unlikely to include exposure to concentrations one million times higher than those found in Nature. With such exposure one can readily reject reported effects as being a function of concentration. For example, when rats are fed the equivalent of one million ounces of cheeze; they explode. The explosion may be linked to the feed by some people, but not by many researchers (I hope). Mother Nature probably didn't design exploding rats, but it's hard to prove a negative.

Also a major disagreement with the model I have detailed is the fact that androstadienone is not primate specific. When such a compound is found across mammalian species it is very difficult to link it to a species specific effect in primates, let alone in humans. The question then arises, why are we seeing effects of million-fold concentrations in humans with no known effects in any other species at any concentration?

There are so many errors in logic that one could start with the article by Wysocki and Preti, and attempt to resolve enough of the problematic logic to make an argument for Mother Nature. But no one has attempted this, and I think there is a good reason no one will.

Yes... this is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe this molecule (Di-dehydroepiandrosterone, below) is being used in some of the pheromone blends that can be found on the net, but why?

Where would the attachment sites be? This looks like it may have very mild androgenic properties (intracellular), but there is nothing in this molecule to even suggest any binding properties with anything other than maybe some mild very minor androgenic properties?

This one (Alpha Androstenol, below), though, is a classic and the best candidates for a true putative pheromone, not only because of its configuration, but also because of its solubility and weight:

It has the hallmark 3/5 alpha hydroxy configuration that is a definite positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, and zero anabolic properties, and is excreted in urine and sweat.

Here is another one (Allopregnenolone):

This one is a powerful positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, and it also has the classic 3/5 alpha hydroxy configuration, and is excreted in urine. It is a powerful axiolytic substance.

There are other putatives out there that fit the bill, but I question where some of this is going... like what about substances that are steroids that are psychoactive, but aren't excreted? Are we going to use them and call them pheromones because we can artificially make them so?

I don't know. I know that there are things that need to be considered.

I know that there is a lot of dishonesty that surrounds pheromones and pheromone claims. It is the main reason why pheromones have such a bad rep with the majority of the public. There is so much disinformation, it is disheartening.

But you know we all have an interest in pheromones for a reason... most of us because we've tried one or another or a dozen and found something or many things that work. So, we just keep banging along, trying to figure it all out and do our own little part to push pheromone use in a good direction.

Anyway, I'm currently talking with a steroid chemist who has agreed to help guide me when I'm looking at potentials, so hopefully I can steer in the right direction and not further promote any misinformation.

One more thing. I don't think anyone is going to argue that Mother Nature never intended what you see today with pheromone use. That doesn't seem to be the point.

The point is that artificially modifying a person's pheromonal signal in order to create a whole new social environment around the individual is easier than doing the hard work of building character and difficult social and leadership skills.

And with the craziness that we live in today with all the high stress, lack of family and community connections, and very unnatural living arrangements, who can blame anyone for this?

If we were as nature intended, we'd all be living in very small, close-knit communities, working and living closely together... in each other's pockets. That isn't possible any more and Mother Nature hasn't caught up with our modernization and she may never do so.

I received a reprint today that links one of the molecules I have worked with to olfactory receptors and to a neuroendocrine pathway linked to behavior. The challenge is for someone else to find this information and use it to support their product claims.

I don't know of anyone who is currently marketing products who would have any clue as to the importance of this article. But if I tell much more about it here, I can virtually guarantee that some marketer will begin making claims based on the research of others (e.g., as proof that their product works).

A good steroid chemist might be able to determine what I'm talking about, but unless someone is willing to attempt replication of our findings, it is detrimental for me to disclose more information. Meanwhile, please keep in mind the need for species specificity. At some point you need to move from more general mammalian compounds to something specific to primates, and hopefully even more specific, to humans.

(11-09-2009 9:49 PM)Diane999 Wrote: Yes... this is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe this molecule (Di-dehydroepiandrosterone, below) is being used in some of the pheromone blends that can be found on the net, but why?

Where would the attachment sites be? This looks like it may have very mild androgenic properties (intracellular), but there is nothing in this molecule to even suggest any binding properties with anything other than maybe some mild very minor androgenic properties?

This one (Alpha Androstenol, below), though, is a classic and the best candidates for a true putative pheromone, not only because of its configuration, but also because of its solubility and weight:

It has the hallmark 3/5 alpha hydroxy configuration that is a definite positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, and zero anabolic properties, and is excreted in urine and sweat.

Here is another one (Allopregnenolone):

This one is a powerful positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, and it also has the classic 3/5 alpha hydroxy configuration, and is excreted in urine. It is a powerful axiolytic substance.

There are putatives out there that fit the bill, but I question where some of this is going... like what about substances that are steroids that are psychoactive, but aren't excreted? Are we going to use them and call them pheromones because we can artificially make them so?

I don't know. I know that there are things that need to be considered.

I know that there is a lot of dishonesty that surrounds pheromones and pheromone claims. It is the main reason why pheromones have such a bad rep with the majority of the public. There is so much disinformation, it is disheartening.

But you know we all have an interest in pheromones for a reason... most of us because we've tried one or another or a dozen and found something or many things that work. So, we just keep banging along, trying to figure it all out and do our own little part to push pheromone use in a good direction.

Anyway, I'm currently talking with a steroid chemist who has agreed to help guide me when I'm looking at potentials, so hopefully I can steer in the right direction and not further promote any misinformation.